Cartoon for Dutch newspaper Trouw. Art by Tjeerd Royaards
source mastodon - https://newsie.social/@royaards/116594142035336090
This is not a comic strip, it needs to have two frames at least.
what if the frames are on separate posts by the artist?
There is a book by Scott McCloud “Understanding comics”. Check it out.
plot twist! It’s literally a 4-dimensional comic stript - the strip runs through time!!!
exactly!
So Farside is not a comic?
my thought exactly
It’s a Comic, just not a Comic Strip.
Splitting hairs don’t you think? Could use some farside at least decades old comics have more merit then sone of the slop on here.
“Hold the em dashes!”
(is loaded with em dashes)
Ai slop is people
The Misinformation Age
this has been going on for a while now and is not related to AI at all.
it’s called post-structuralism and has been going on at least since the 2000 (at least in spirit, that’s when it gained traction among many scholars etc.). it says that there is no “objective reality” (in other words, only subjective realities exists, everybody sees the world differently and there are no absolute rules/morals).
basically it says that you can just construct your own truth if you are powerful / wealthy enough to do that.
This is so super deep
c/im14andthisisdeep
We had misinformation before AI…
We burned things way before of the industrial revolution, sadly after that, things have started to get way out of control and now the whole planet is heating up. Enough quantity changes the landscape.
Is AI misinformation spiraling out of control?
Have you been on tXwitter lately? Or seen some Fox News?
No
The situation is pretty bad. You can have a sneak peak here:
damn. for everybody too lazy to click it. it’s news reporting, except that it’s not.
But that’s not on the news
Good point - “grandparents” won’t see this nearly as much as younger people, many of whom will completely believe it.
And we had information before the Information Age. Now we have a lot more of both.
Why isn’t “truth” being sold by subscription? Leavin money on the table, folks.
Friendly reminder: if you intentionally generate nonsense content thinking it will screw up AI, and congratulate yourself for being a Justice Warrior, you’re equally screwing all the humans who look stuff up online. That form of social activism is like peeing in the pool, except there’s no chlorine.
The ruiner’s a collector
He’s an infector serving his shit to his flies
Maybe there will come a day
When those that you keep blind will suddenly realize
Nine Inch Nails - Ruiner
The winners in the absurdity:
useful propaganda tool, since conservatives cant tell the difference.
Wow
Is this it? Boomer posts invading lemmy?
This is some im14andthisisdeep type shit.
Made worse by the fact I know the average Lemmite is a mid 30’s adult.
Yes, but still true.
ageism = profiling
@grok What does this image mean?
/s
It means eat/s
except the healthy and truthful facts stand doesn’t and never did exist.
If it did it would be simple to train a healthy and truthful facts AI, you would simply train it off from the truthful and healthy facts.
but everyone makes up their own narrative until all written word appear relative to the AI, making it impossible for the ai to tell fact from fiction.
When you read “slop” you are simply reading the words of someone who doesn’t live in in your constructed narrative.
And now to prove it I will have plenty of down votes on this comment.
Deconstructing the premise from first principles:
except the healthy and truthful facts stand doesn’t and never did exist.
• False: Bodies of recorded objective facts such as encyclopedia and scientific papers exist.
If it did it would be simple to train a healthy and truthful facts AI, you would simply train it off from the truthful and healthy facts.
• Logical fallacy: Assuming the antecedent, the first premise must be proved before a conclusion can be drawn.
but everyone makes up their own narrative until all written word appear relative to the AI, making it impossible for the ai to tell fact from fiction.
• Opinion. Artificial intelligence is designed to reproduce patterns. If you presume your prior premise was true, a “facts trained” AI should in theory have been able to distinguish truth from falsehood.
When you read “slop” you are simply reading the words of someone who doesn’t live in in your constructed narrative.
• Conflation: “Slop” is a pejorative term for all content generated by artificial intelligence, but particularly low quality, sloppy, one.
And now to prove it I will have plenty of down votes on this comment.
• Logical fallacy: Strawman. Constructing a poor argument in order to prove it is, itself false, at best, a waste of time.
Overall truth value: 16.17% (Mostly misleading/inflammatory comment)And someone will take this narrative as fact
And now to prove it I will have plenty of down votes on this comment.
I switched an upvote to a downvote after reading this last sentence, so it doesn’t really prove anything.
Except If I disagree with you it’s because I have a different constructed reality.
so my every argument no matter how irrational proves my point, making your point irrational making my irrational point rational.
“The titular “catch 22” is a bureaucratic paradox: a pilot can be grounded for being insane, but requesting to be grounded proves he’s sane - because only a sane person would want to avoid danger. Therefore he can never be grounded. Any escape route is blocked by the very rule you’d invoke to use it.”
Given that you seem to think this response is at all relevant to my comment, perhaps you have constructed a different reality.
It is relevant, you are making a statement that ai lies and as such has no value.
Propaganda against AI wether for good evil or profit doesn’t matter definitionally it is propaganda.
but this would imply we have an ultimate source of Truth glean from almost religious like a Bible as suggested by the healthful truth bar.
but the problem is that all humans lie all websites are influenced by ads, all news is politically biased, making your entire post misleading and therefore it’s creating a false reality.
Entirely relevant.
you are making a statement that ai lies and as such has no value.
Am I?
I thought I was making a statement about how I downvote everybody who says they will get downvoted, on principal.
We get it, you took a philosophy class, or read Kant, or something else equally useless. You’re espousing that there is no such thing as an absolute truth as an absolute truth.
Do you really not see how the entirety of that argument just boils down to you nihilistically staring into the abyss of your own asshole?
Incorrect on both accounts.
My argument is around the general idea that humans are just as bad of a source of information as AI or worse, and the hallucination argument is not a valid argument it will not prevent anyone’s jobs from being replaced by ai and people who go to the slop machine are not making an inherently worse decision, it might make a mistake but so will you.
Also I’ve never taken a philosophy class.
Also I’ve never taken a philosophy class.
Maybe you should!
Well, at least you chose an accurate username.
When you read “slop” you are simply reading the words of someone who doesn’t live in in your constructed narrative.
Tell me more?
when someone reads slop, youre not reading human work. i dont contruct the narrative of who is born into exsistence, and who is not. I must not understand what you mean by these words.
You actually are reading heavily distorted and rearranged human work, when you read the code you are reading the aggregate of all code from all idiots and all coders combined but the average person who coded is an idiot so you get bad code.
When you read the philosophy of an AI you get every genuine genius and every babbling idiot but the average person is not a well read philosopher his only philosophy is to survive the day.
Every thought ever had is within AI both good and bad and it has no way of knowing what is better than the other, that is the “slop” it is simply the average man’s thought and tye average man is an idiot.
If it did it would be simple to train a healthy and truthful facts AI, you would simply train it off from the truthful and healthy facts.
Not how AI works. I mean, it’s technically possible to train an AI that only generates truth, but it would be so overfitted that it’s functionally no different from the search bar on Wikipedia.
Large language models need randomness to function. They cut up every true sentence in the training data into tiny tokens and reassemble them into… well, whatever arrangement of tokens satisfies the discriminator or the humans who grade the output. Discriminators can’t tell fact from fiction and the humans generally don’t care to.
Even if you valued truth above all else during the training and rejected every false statement you encounter, there’s no way you could judge the truth of every possible statement the system could ever produce. And with randomness most statements will be false, that’s simply the nature of truth.
i’m 14 and this is deep
